A Kubrick A.I. would undoubtedly be less humanistic, and certainly less neurotic than what Spielberg brought to it. The middle section would have a darker, maybe nihilistic sexuality (consider Eyes Wide Shut) and not the rather mawkish hedonism suggested. The ending wouldn't be an excercise in incestous wish fulfillment. All in all, Kubrick would be more dispassionate, and maybe not entirely to our liking, but more emotionally honest.

The Aldiss story has a certain dispassion, with a greater ironic undertow, and tugged on our human understanding and sympathy better. As usual Spielberg do emotional meltdowns (Dreyfuss in Close Encounter, Schindler mobbed by the people he had saved as they spilled from the cattle cars). Aldiss had another earlier story that has the same dispassion and elegiac sense, But Who Can Replace Man?

As for Minoraty Report, Dick was deterministic, a darker take, but consistant with both his philosophy and sensibility. Spielberg was new age anti-deterministic, such as it is, a Hollywood ending. He also made such a big deal out of a production design that was not Bladerunner that he created a look that was antithetical to Dick; oddly enuf, David Lynch capture it best in his Dune, sorta latter day Italian fascistic with brown uniforms and monumental architecture.

I'm not really trying to fight wih you, wong, but where did you get the idea to call this thread "redux." I am a Spielberg lover, but you obviously aren't. "Redux" refers to something that's openly admitted to being great, when in the past, it may not have been. I realize that you believe that Spielberg has many flaws, including not "trusting his audience", but have you considered the FACT that his audience trusts Spielberg!

You mean you weren't 30 mins. ahead of the plot in Close Encounter?

You mean we didn't know that Schindler was a Good Guy (and incurred great personal risk) without the cattle cars stopping and all the concentration camp inmate swarmming him with gratitude for saving their lives - a scene NOWHERE in the Keneally book or in FACT, that NEVER f*cking occurred? This rival the Leonardo/Kate staircase validictory decent at the end of Titanic for sheer self-congratulation. We don't get it?

We don't know that the military medic was BRAVE in the openning scene to Private Ryan, he has to go against lines of fire to a comrade cut in half by a mortar shell explosion and cradle his upper torso on the f*cking beachhead in Normandy? What, to show that he cares about human lives?

You call this trusting the audience?

I call this pandering to the audience, unabashed sentimentality of the worst kind, an obssessive need for the audience to get it, to understand his, Spielberg's, heart is in the right place.

Look at Color Purple!

Look at A.I.! It ends with an incestous wish-fulfillment: you get to sleep with Mommy now that you're no longer a robotic boy. Do you think Kubrick would touch this with a 3 feet pole?

And the middle section? Is it perile or mawkish or what? This is what Spielberg imagine to be over-the-top hedonism and depravity? This is a director who has no comfort zone in depicting human sexuality or genuine adult emotions.

Minority Report ends in some idiot Oedipal nonsense. What, pray tell, has this to do with Dick, or for that matter, anything else?

Why shouldn't the audience like it?

Has it occurred to you why much of America is obese? Is it because they despise junk food and good living and is obssessed with daily excercise?

Why would you think he's a great director?

Why do you think I hate him? He did a fabulous job with the 1st Indiana Jones and the 1st Jurassic Park - no one could have done a better job. I believe that. I just don't think he is important in making any statement that addresses larger human concerns. He can do something that Kubrick can't: he can entertain, just like all those serial stuff he enjoyed when he was a kid. Kubrick can't without being difficult and thorny. There is no light Kubrick entertainment. Each man is gifted, but in different ways, maybe tragically so given each their ambitions, neither can be the other: all the success in the world may not bring you respect; no matter how whip-smart you are, may not get you an audience, at least not a mass one.

Hey, let's fight, what else is the point of being Irish.

Oh, if Coppola can have Apocralypse Redux, why can't I have Spielberg Redux?

(Incidently, he sure mess up that wonderful wet fever dream. What was he thinking of?)

This is pretty interesting, but I don't like getting into such black-and-white discussions. It almost sounds like we're discussing politics, and we all know how closed-minded that makes everyone.

You seem to be mostly pointing out Spielberg's flaws, while neglecting to specifically comment on any of his gifts, except for "Raiders" and "Jurassic Park." Hell, I think "Jaws" is 10 times better than "Jurassic Park", even if that was well-done for what it was.

I'm going to go off in a couple of other directions here first. I'm assuming that you don't think that Chaplin or Capra are great directors since they seem to push too many emotional buttons, and apparently film is supposed to be something too serious to let people actually recuperate from the drudgery of their daily life. What exactly do you think of those two?

Also, wong, since you seem to believe the written word is holier than the film image (at least for American hacks), can you recommend a film that completely, faithfully reproduces a book without adding, changing or removing key material? (I'm basically illiterate ["One Hundred Years of Solitude" remains my favorite novel and they did make an unsatisfactory film of it] and way overweight [no, I don't eat junk food], so I really love it that so many people walk/talk while harboring not-so-hidden contempt for their brothers-and-sisters-in-humankind-- this is not a personal crack; I've noticed posters bashing "fatties" and of course, there's no intentional hatred involved, but it's just another form of intolerance masked as some sort of enlightenment.)

Wow, I probably should have let that not pass into the ether. I'm much more interested in your thoughts on film. One other thing, wong, if you go to the General Music Discussion and the Introductions thread, you can learn a lot more about all of us and then we can learn about the Irish wong.

Hey, have you ever seen "The Wanderers"? There's a gang in the movie called The Wongs, and one of their key lines is, "Don't fuck with the Wongs!" Now I really know what that means...

If Kubrick had done the film it would have been different, but the good thing about Kubrick was his films werent predictable. He had an incredibly dynaminc style that kept each of his films fresh, so I think it is a bit silly to try and say what he would have done.

mark f:

Hey, I'm a softie, my licence plate say so: "4 tofu".

I suppose where I'm coming from is simply having a critical mind, and making judgement on the world that we see, not what is fed us in an increasing consumerist, what you might call, to use a friend's phrase, an "administered" world.

Not having one can lead you into odd uncomfortable places, whether you're dodging IEDs in downtown Baghdad, or simply having to deal with the contradiction of understanding that the world feels unkindly toward you inspite of your best intentions.

We should know better.

I suppose, to get back to the black and white and specifics of Spielberg as a director and an artist, is the feeling I have that he wants to control my emotions- he isn't willing to let me draw my own conclusions. Not if he can help it, and he has in excess of 50-80 M per picture to do so. I submit to you that his need for affirmation is intellectually oppressive, and for someone with a critical mind, it undermines the authority of his image.

Why insert that scene into Schindler? Why do an end-run on the fact of the matter, especially when you don't need to? Schindler is already heroic! Why create a moral "laugh track" to help me make up my mind. This is emotional propaganda, and it underminds the authority of his image, and yes, his art. The narrative strategy and visual economy of the 1st Indiana Jones is unimpreachable, in spite of the fact that it is serial trifle. But you sit there for 2 hrs. and the world goes away. What better commendation does art require? None.

Sometimes artists overreach, as Woody Allen did with Interiors, and you see how silly it is. Should Spielberg be content with being the most bankable film director in the human universe? Of course not. But why does he need to be Stanley Kubrick, or for that matter, Jonathan Demme. Confidence means you don't have to try so hard - trust your audience to like you. Than you can take them to places they haven't been before. That would be incurring risk, and you grow as an artist. Or maybe being the most bankable director in the human universe has its downside. Maybe you begin to believe in your own press, and you do things that the world tell you is important, to be important. But what if you're not really a deep person, what if you're arrested at some adolescent point? And there you are. So go figure.

One Hundred Years of Solitude, Song of Solomon, and Rough Strife were the 3 books on my list when I had one.

The filmmakers were Bertolucci and Godard.

The writers were Conrad, V.S.Naipaul and Susan Sontage.

My musical taste begins with Stravinsky and John Coltrane.

And like the Irish, I've never back from a fight.

See you in music.

Eastwood's Bloodwork is better than the book.

Doug Liman's Bourne Identity is better than the book.

To Have and Have Not is better than the Hemingway story.

Bertolucci's Before the Revolution is equal to its source.

L.A. Confidential is as good as the Elroy novel.

Once Upon a Time in America is based on a generic gangster novel.

The list can get long, but not as long as the failures.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
Eastwood's Bloodwork is better than the book.

Doug Liman's Bourne Identity is better than the book.

To Have and Have Not is better than the Hemingway story.

Bertolucci's Before the Revolution is equal to its source.

L.A. Confidential is as good as the Elroy novel.

Once Upon a Time in America is based on a generic gangster novel.

The list can get long, but not as long as the failures.

---

I believe you. "Jaws" and "The Godfather" were better than the books. But, at what point does the viewer decide that they know more than the adapter? At what point do you get indignant or just accept that you're dealing with a different medium? wong, keep it coming; we care!

Member 27:

No, it's not.

It's easy, see new posting "A.I. The Re-Make."

Like I said this is a really interesting thread. wong, do you know of any director, at least legitimate, who doesn't want to control your emotions? Alain Resnais' "Night and Fog" is one of the most unemotional films I've ever seen. Is it a complete coincidence that I basically cry the entire length of the film, like some complete baby?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
Like I said this is a really interesting thread. wong, do you know of any director, at least legitimate, who doesn't want to control your emotions? Alain Resnais' "Night and Fog" is one of the most unemotional films I've ever seen. Is it a complete coincidence that I basically cry the entire length of the film, like some complete baby?

---

A director's primary aim is to make a film stir emotions. If a film didnt do this, nobody would feel any sort of attachment to the film and it would be a total dud. Think back to the last time you saw a film that made you feel absolutely nothing throughout the entire experience and ask yourself if you would watch the film again.

mark f/Member 27:

This is not a hard concept.

The fact you respond so emotionally to Resnais is simply testimony to the power of the work, its capacity to move you by showing you the plight of a people at the mercy of genocidal forces. As a director, Resnais is known for a sense of detachment and emotional restraint. Evidently, he convinced you that what he is showing you are genuine and authentic, maybe he is even leading you to some sort of truth. He doesn't give you any reason to doubt either his veracity or the sincerity of his intent. It is effective art; it moved you powerfully. The presumption is that Resnais didn't manipulated you in any unethical way, or lied to you, just as you felt that you were not deceived: you were moved to sympathy by what was presented to you. There is no issue here.

Just as there is no issue to acknowledging that in our consumerist culture, there are forces at work trying to influence our buying habit, pushing certain brands, shaping what is desirable (and what isn't), creating "needs" that are both legitimate and artificial. Because we live in a democracy, power elites use whatever power is at their disposal, including institutions, to shape our opinion, to create consensus.

We are living at a point in American history where we're finding evidence that our political leaders have deceived us by using governmental (CIA), political (think tanks) and public institutions (the media), to advance a military agenda to commit this country to a premeditated war and occupation of a foreign country that constituted no threat to us. It did this thru misinformation, propaganda, and trading on the fear associated with 9/11.

Keep in mind that the audience for Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will were moved, and moved powerfully by the images of a powerful leader, one who would stand up to the enemy victors who have humiliated the motherland, they were move by the valorized images of massed youth and soldiers with their brown uniforms and red bandanas. They were proud, and in the solidarity of the great masses they see parading in formation before the Reichstag, they knew the future belongs to them.

Just keep in mind that dictators and cult leaders may rule thru fear, but to recruit and mobilized, you use the better human emotions, love, pride, yearning for community, the love of their children and their future. Stalin and Hitler were either charming or charismatic or both. So was Mansion.

What does this have to do with your question? Just that while it is a given that art communicates and persuades, it doesn't necessarily have to manipulate and/or deceive. The fabricated scene in Schindler suggests either a deep emotional neediness on Spielberg's part, or a refusal to let the audience draw it's own conclusion without clubbing them over the head.

In most sit-coms, there's a laugh track. When you're the audience at the taping of a variety show, there are staffers with applause cue signs.

Don't you think these are coercive methodologies?

Oh, Bresson, Ozu, here, early Demme. (You can make the case that these directors allow their characters to exhibit "true" sentiments in all their individuality and varieties, whereas someone like Spielberg sentimentalizes his characters in one fashion or other. Just think of all the child re-unions there are in his work: Dryfuss the man-child in Close Encounter, ET wants to go home, the Ballard character reunited with parents in Empire, robot boy reunited with Mommy as a human boy in AI, the little girl sucked into the television in Spielberg-produced Poltergeist reunites. There may be others. Pretty obsessive, don't you think?

I have conflicting opinions about Spielberg.

On one hand, the first 90 minutes of Minority Report were amazing.

On the other hand, the ending almost completely ruined it all. In fact, next time I watch the movie, I think I'll hit *stop* right before that guy shoots himself and pretend he shot Anderton instead and there's a more morally ambiguous ending.

I'm just glad with War of the Worlds he's finally ruining a scifi novel that's *supposed* to have a happy ending with needlessly gaudy special effects-ridden overproduction.

The original War of the Worlds focused more on the people who lived in the general area near where the alien spaceship came down. No need for huge tentacles coming down and grabbing people. Then again, if they were true to the book/radio broadcast, they'd have to have scenes where people talked for more than 45 seconds -- well beyond the average moviegoer's attention span.

Spielberg is great at creating a perfectly paced, gripping scene. He's a very good director. Just his recent choice of projects and predilection for disastrously mushy endings sours me on him.